520 Phil. 1006
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
NAME | DATE REGULAR | PRESENT RATE | ADJUST EFF 2/6/98 | NEW RATE |
1. PEPINO EMMANUEL | 08.01.97 | 191.00 | 13.00 | 204.00 |
2. SEVANDRA RODOLFO | 01.17.98 | 192.00 | 13.00 | 205.00 |
3. BERNABE ALFREDO | 10.24.97 | 200.00 | 13.00 | 213.00 |
4. UMBAL ADOLFO | 08.18.97 | 215.00 | 12.00 | 227.00 |
5. AQUINO JONAS | 08.25.97 | 215.00 | 12.00 | 227.00 |
6. AGCAOILI JAIME | 01.08.98 | 220.00 | 11.00 | 231.00 |
7. BERMEJO JIMMY JR. | 04.01.97 | 221.00 | 11.00 | 232.00 |
8. EDRADAN ELDEMAR P. | 04.17.97 | 221.00 | 11.00 | 232.00 |
9. REBOTON RONILO | 05.14.97 | 221.00 | 11.00 | 232.00 |
10. TABAOG ALBERT | 04.10.97 | 221.00 | 11.00 | 232.00 |
11. SALEN EDILBERTO | 02.10.97 | 221.00 | 11.00 | 232.00 |
13. PAEZ REYNALDO | 02.27.97. | 235.00 | 11.00 | 246.00 |
14. HERNANDEZ ALFREDO | 03.23.96 | 246.00 | 10.00 | 256.00 |
15. BANIA LUIS JR. | 12.08.95 | 246.00 | 10.00 | 256.00 |
16. MAGBOO VICTOR | 05.25.96 | 246.00 | 10.00 | 256.00 |
17. NINORA BONIFACIO | 03.22.96 | 246.00 | 10.00 | 256.00 |
18. ALANCADO RODERICK | 11.10.95 | 246.00 | 10.00 | 256.00 |
19. PUTONG PASCUAL | 06.23.96 | 246.00 | 10.00 | 256.00 |
20. PAR EULOGIO JR. | 08.16.95 | 246.00 | 10.00 | 256.00 |
21. SALON FONDADOR | 11.16.95 | 246.00 | 10.00 | 256.00 |
22. RODA GEORGE | 10.11.95 | 246.00 | 10.00 | 256.00 |
23. RIOJA JOSEPH | 12.28.95 | 246.00 | 10.00 | 256.00 |
24. RAYMUNDO ANTONIO | 06.05.96 | 246.00 | 10.00 | 256.00 |
25. BUGTAI ROBERTO | 04.10.96 | 246.00 | 10.00 | 256.00 |
26. RELATO RAMON | 07.07.96 | 265.00 | 10.00 | 275.00 |
27. REGACHUELO DENNIS | 11.30.95 | 265.00 | 10.00 | 275.00 |
28. ORNOPIA REYNALDO | 08.09.94 | 268.00 | 10.00 | 278.00 |
29. PULPULAAN JAIME | 01.18.96 | 275.00 | 10.00 | 285.00 |
30. PANLAAN FERDINAND | 01.18.96 | 275.00 | 10.00 | 285.00 |
31.BAGASBAS EULOGIO JR. | 01.18.96 | 275.00 | 10.00 | 285.00 |
32. ALEJANDRO OLIVER | 12.03.95 | 275.00 | 10.00 | 285.00 |
33. PRIELA DANILO | 11.30.95 | 280.00 | 10.00 | 290.00 |
34. NOBELJAS EDGAR | 07.10.95 | 283.00 | 10.00 | 293.00 |
35. SAJOT RONNIE | 10.02.93 | 288.00 | 10.00 | 298.00 |
36. WHITING JOEL | 09.30.93 | 288.00 | 10.00 | 298.00 |
37. SURINGA FRANKLIN | 12.19.93 | 288.00 | 10.00 | 298.00 |
38. SIBOL MICHAEL | 12.11.93 | 288.00 | 10.00 | 298.00 |
39. SOLO JOSE | 02.20.94 | 288.00 | 10.00 | 298.00 |
40. TIZON JOEL | 12.23.93 | 288.00 | 10.00 | 298.00 |
41. SABATIN GILBERT | 04.19.94 | 288.00 | 10.00 | 298.00 |
42. REYES RONALDO | 04.14.94 | 288.00 | 10.00 | 298.00 |
43. AMANIA WILFREDO | 01.06.94 | 288.00 | 10.00 | 298.00 |
44. QUIDATO ARISTON | 12.12.93 | 288.00 | 10.00 | 298.00 |
45. LAROGA CLAUDIO JR. | 10.13.93 | 288.00 | 10.00 | 298.00 |
46. MORALES LUIS | 09.30.93 | 288.00 | 10.00 | 298.00 |
47. ANTOLO DANILO | 12.26.93 | 288.00 | 10.00 | 298.00 |
48. EXMUNDO HERCULES | 05.13.94 | 288.00 | 10.00 | 298.00 |
49. AMPER VALENTINO | 08.02.93 | 288.00 | 10.00 | 298.00 |
50. BAYO-ANG ALDEN JR. | 07.14.93 | 288.00 | 10.00 | 298.00 |
51. BASCONES NELSON | 02.26.94 | 288.00 | 10.00 | 298.00 |
52. DECENA LAURO | 09.18.93 | 288.00 | 10.00 | 298.00 |
53. CHUA MARLONITO | 10.20.93 | 288.00 | 10.00 | 298.00 |
54. CATACUTAN JUNE | 03.02.94 | 288.00 | 10.00 | 298.00 |
55.DE LOS SANTOS REYNALDO | 12.23.93 | 288.00 | 10.00 | 298.00 |
56. REYES EFREN | 10.23.93 | 288.00 | 10.00 | 298.00 |
57. CAGOMOC DANILO | 01.13.94 | 298.00 | 10.00 | 298.00 |
58. DOROL ERWIN | 09.16.93 | 298.00 | 10.00 | 298.00 |
59. CURAMBAO TIRSO | 09.23.93 | 298.00 | 10.00 | 298.00 |
60. VENTURA FERDINAND | 09.20.94 | 292.00 | 10.00 | 302.00 |
61. ALBANO JESUS | 01.06.94 | 297.00 | 10.00 | 307.00 |
62. CALLEJA JOSEPH | 05.10.93 | 303.00 | 10.00 | 313.00 |
63. PEREZ DANILO | 03.01.93 | 303.00 | 10.00 | 313.00 |
64. BATOY ERNIE | 06.15.93 | 305.00 | 10.00 | 315.00 |
65. SAMPAGA EDGARDO | 06.07.93 | 307.00 | 10.00 | 317.00 |
66. SOLON ROBINSON | 05.10.94 | 315.00 | 10.00 | 325.00 |
67. ELEDA FULGENIO | 06.07.93 | 322.00 | 10.00 | 332.00 |
68. CASCARA RODRIGO | 06.07.93 | 322.00 | 10.00 | 332.00 |
69. ROMANOS ARNULFO | 06.07.93 | 322.00 | 10.00 | 332.00 |
70. LUMANSOC MARIANO | 06.07.93 | 322.00 | 10.00 | 332.00 |
71. RAMOS GRACIANO | 06.07.93 | 322.00 | 10.00 | 332.00 |
72. MAZON NESTOR | 07.24.90 | 330.00 | 10.00 | 340.00 |
73. BRIN LUCENIO | 07.26.90 | 330.00 | 10.00 | 340.00 |
74. SE FREDIE | 03.25.90 | 340.00 | 10.00 | 350.00 |
75. RONCALES DIOSDADO | 04.30.90 | 340.00 | 10.00 | 350.00 |
76. DISCAYA EDILBERTO | 09.06.89 | 340.00 | 10.00 | 350.00 |
77. SUAREZ LUISTO | 06.10.92 | 347.00 | 10.00 | 357.00 |
78. CASTRO PEDRO | 10.30.92 | 348.00 | 10.00 | 358.00 |
79. CLAVECILLA AMBROSIO | 09.09.88 | 351.00 | 10.00 | 361.00 |
80. YSON ROMEO | 09.11.88 | 351.00 | 10.00 | 361.00 |
81. JUMAWAN URBANO JR. | 12.20.87 | 354.00 | 10.00 | 364.00 |
82. MARASIGAN GRACIANO | 05.20.88 | 354.00 | 10.00 | 364.00 |
83. MAGLENTE ROLANDO | 09.03.87 | 354.00 | 10.00 | 364.00 |
84. NEBRIA CALIX | 02.25.88 | 354.00 | 10.00 | 364.00 |
85. BARBIN DANIEL | 09.03.87 | 354.00 | 10.00 | 364.00 |
86. CAMAING CARLITO | 12.22.87 | 354.00 | 10.00 | 364.00 |
87. BUBAN JONATHAN | 10.22.87 | 354.00 | 10.00 | 364.00 |
88. GUEVARRA ARNOLD | 10.04.87 | 354.00 | 10.00 | 364.00 |
89. MALAPO MARCOS JR. | 08.04.87 | 354.00 | 10.00 | 364.00 |
90. ZUNIEGA CARLOS | 02.19.88 | 354.00 | 10.00 | 364.00 |
91. SABORNIDO JULITO | 12.20.87 | 354.00 | 10.00 | 364.00 |
92. DALUYO LOTERIO | 04.02.88 | 354.00 | 10.00 | 364.00 |
93. AGUILLON GRACIANO | 05.27.87 | 369.00 | 10.00 | 369.00 |
94. CRISTY EMETERIO | 04.06.87 | 359.50 | 10.00 | 369.50 |
95. FULGUERAS DOMINGO | 01.25.87 | 362.00 | 10.00 | 372.00 |
96. ZIPAGAN NELSON | 02.07.84 | 370.00 | 10.00 | 380.00 |
97. LAURIO JESUS | 06.01.82 | 371.00 | 10.00 | 381.00 |
98. ACASIO PEDRO | 11.21.79 | 372.00 | 10.00 | 382.00 |
99. MACALISANG EPIFANIO | 02.01.88 | 372.00 | 10.00 | 382.00 |
100. OFILAN ANTONIO | 03.12.79 | 374.50 | 10.00 | 384.50 |
101. SEVANDRA ALFREDO | 05.02.69 | 374.50 | 10.00 | 384.50 |
102. VILLAMER JOEY | 11.04.81 | 374.50 | 10.00 | 384.50 |
103. GRIPON GIL | 01.17.76 | 374.75 | 10.00 | 384.75 |
104. CARLON HERMINIGILDO, JR. | 04.17.87 | 375.00 | 10.00 | 385.00 |
105. MANLABAO HEROHITO | 04.14.81 | 375.00 | 10.00 | 385.00 |
106. VILLANUEVA DOMINGO | 12.01.77 | 375.50 | 10.00 | 385.50 |
107. APITAN NAZARIO | 09.04.79 | 376.00 | 10.00 | 386.00 |
108. SALAMEDA EDUARDO | 02.13.79 | 377.00 | 10.00 | 387.00 |
109. ARNALDO LOPE | 05.02.69 | 378.50 | 10.00 | 388.50 |
110. SURIGAO HERNANDO | 12.29.79 | 379.00 | 10.00 | 389.00 |
111. DE LA CRUZ CHARLIE | 07.14.76 | 379.00 | 10.00 | 389.00 |
112. ROSAURO JUAN | 07.15.76 | 379.50 | 10.00 | 389.50 |
113. HILOTIN ARLEN | 10.10.77 | 383.00 | 10.00 | 393.00[4] |
Section 1. WAGE ADJUSTMENT - The COMPANY agrees to grant all the workers, who are already regular and covered by this AGREEMENT at the effectivity of this AGREEMENT, a general wage increase as follows:For the first year of the CBA's effectivity, the salaries of Union members were increased as follows:July 1, 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . P15.00 per day per employee
July 1, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . P25.00 per day per employee
July 1, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . P30.00 per day per employee
The aforesaid wage increase shall be implemented across the board. Any Wage Order to be implemented by the Regional Tripartite Wage and Productivity Board shall be in addition to the wage increase adverted to above. However, if no wage increase is given by the Wage Board within six (6) months from the signing of this AGREEMENT, the Management is willing to give the following increases, to wit:July 1, 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . P20.00 per day per employee
July 1, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . P25.00 per day per employee
July 1, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . P30.00 per day per employee
The difference of the first year adjustment to retroact to July 1, 1999.
The across-the-board wage increase for the 4th and 5th year of this AGREEMENT shall be subject for a re-opening or renegotiation as provided for by Republic Act No. 6715. [5]
NAME | WAGE | NAME | WAGE |
1. Pedro Acasio | P427.00 | 53. Nestor Mazon | P385.00 |
2. Roderick Alancado | 301.00 | 54. Luis Morales | 343.00 |
3. Jesus Albano | 352.00 | 55. Calix Nebria | 409.00 |
4. Oliver Alejandro | 330.00 | 56. Bonifacio Ninora Jr. | 301.00 |
5. Welfredo Amania | 343.00 | 57. Edgar Noblejas | 338.00 |
6. Valentino Amper | 343.00 | 58. Antonio Ofilan | 429.50 |
7. Danilo Antolo | 343.00 | 59. Reynaldo Ornopia | 323.00 |
8. Nazario Apitan | 431.00 | 60. Reynaldo Paez | 291.00 |
9. Jonas Aquino | 272.00 | 61. Ferdinand Panlaan | 330.00 |
10. Eulogio Bagasbas, Jr. | 330.00 | 62. Eulogio Par Jr. | 301.00 |
11. Luis Bania, Jr. | 301.00 | 63. Marvin Peco | 223.00 |
12. Daniel Barbin | 409.00 | 64. Emmanuel Pepino | 249.00 |
13. Nelson Bascones | 343.00 | 65. Danilo Perez | 358.00 |
14. Alden Bayo-ang, Jr. | 343.00 | 66. Jaime Pulpulaan | 330.00 |
15. Jimmy Bermejo | 277.00 | 67. Ariston Quidato | 343.00 |
16. Alfredo Bernabe | 258.00 | 68. Graciano Ramos Jr. | 377.00 |
17. Lucenio Brin | 385.00 | 69. Antonio Raymundo | 301.00 |
18. Jonathan Buban | 409.00 | 70. Ronilo Reboton | 277.00 |
19. Roberto Bugtai | 301.00 | 71. Ramon Relato | 320.00 |
20. Danilo Cagomoc | 343.00 | 72. Efren Reyes | 343.00 |
21. Joseph Calleja | 358.00 | 73. Ronaldo Reyes | 343.00 |
22. Carlito Camaing | 409.00 | 74. Joseph Rioja | 301.00 |
23. Hermenigildo Carlon, Jr. | 430.00 | 75. George Roda | 301.00 |
24. June Catacutan | 343.00 | 76. Diosdado Roncales | 395.00 |
25. Marlonito Chua | 343.00 | 77. Gilbert Sabatin | 343.00 |
26. Ambrocio Clavecilla | 406.00 | 78. Julito Sabornido | 409.00 |
27. Emeterio Cristy | 414.50 | 79. Ronnie Sajot | 343.00 |
28. Tirso Curambao | 343.00 | 80. Eduardo Salameda | 432.00 |
29. Loterio Daluyo | 409.00 | 81. Edilberto Salen | 277.00 |
30. Lauro Decena | 343.00 | 82. Fundador Salon | 301.00 |
31. Charlie dela Cruz | 434.00 | 83. Edgar Sampaga | 362.00 |
32. Raynaldo delos Santos | 343.00 | 84. Fredie Se | 395.00 |
33. Edilberto Discaya | 395.00 | 85. Rodolfo Sevandra | 250.00 |
34. Erwin Dorol | 343.00 | 86. Jose Solo | 343.00 |
35. Eldemar Edradan | 277.00 | 87. Robinson Solon | 370.00 |
36. Fulgencio Eleda | 377.00 | 88. Luisito Suarez | 402.00 |
37. Hercules Exmundo | 343.00 | 89. Jeriel Suico | 223.00 |
38. Domingo Fulgueras | 417.00 | 90. Hernando Surigao | 434.00 |
39. Federico Garcia | 277.00 | 91. Franklin Suringa | 343.00 |
40. Gil Gripon | 429.75 | 92. Albert Tabaog | 277.00 |
41. Arnold Guevarra | 409.00 | 93. Joel Tizon | 343.00 |
42. Arlen Hilotin | 438.00 | 94. Alfredo Umbal | 272.00 |
43. Urbano Jumawan, Jr. | 409.00 | 95. Ferdinand Ventura | 347.00 |
44. Ronilo Lacandoze | 265.00 | 96. Joey Villamer | 429.50 |
45. Claudio Laroga, Jr. | 343.00 | 97.Domingo Villanueva | 430.50 |
46. Jesus Laurio | 426.00 | 98. Joel Whiting | 343.00 |
47. Mariano Lumansoc | 377.00 | 99. Romeo Yson | 406.00 |
48. Victor Magboo | 301.00 | 100. Carlos Zuniega | 409.00 |
49. Rolando Maglente | 409.00 | 101. Nelson Zipagan | 425.00 |
50. Marcos Malapo Jr. | 409.00 | 102. Michael Sibol | 343.00 |
51. Herohito Manlabao | 430.00 | 103. Renante Tangian | 223.00 |
52. Graciano Marasigan | 409.00 | 104. Rodrigo Cascara | 377.00[6] |
Section 1. Upon the effectivity of this Wage Order, private sector workers and employees in the National Capital Region receiving the prescribed daily minimum wage rate of P223.50 shall receive an increase of TWENTY SIX PESOS and FIFTY CENTAVOS (P26.50) per day, thereby setting the new minimum wage rate in the National Capital Region at TWO HUNDRED FIFTY PESOS (P250.00) per day. [10]Then Union president Lucenio Brin requested petitioner to implement the increase under Wage Order No. NCR-08 in favor of the company's rank-and-file employees. Petitioner rejected the request, claiming that since none of the employees were receiving a daily salary rate lower than P250.00 and there was no wage distortion, it was not obliged to grant the wage increase.
x x x To supplement the above wage increases, the parties agree that additional wage increases equal to the wage orders shall be paid across-the-board whenever the Regional Tripartite Wage and Productivity Board issues wage orders. It is understood that these additional wage increases will be paid not as wage orders but as agreed additional salary increases using the wage orders merely as a device to fix or determine how much the additional wage increases shall be paid. [16]The Union, however, insisted that there was such a company practice. It pointed out that despite the fact that all the employees were already receiving salaries above the minimum wage, the CBA still provided for the payment of a wage increase using wage orders as the yardstick. It claimed that the parties intended that petitioner-employer would pay the additional increases apart from those in the CBA. [17] The Union further asserted that the CBA did not include all the agreements of the parties; hence, to determine the true intention of the parties, parol evidence should be resorted to. Thus, Atty. Yambot's version of the wage adjustment provision should be considered. [18]
The principal issue in the present petition is whether or not the wage increase of P26.50 under Wage Order No. NCR-08 must be paid to the union members as a matter of practice and whether or not parol evidence can be resorted to in proving or explaining or elucidating the existence of a collateral agreement/company practice for the payment of the wage increase under the wage order despite that the employees were already receiving wages way above the minimum wage of P250.00/day as prescribed by Wage Order No. NCR-08 and irrespective of whether wage distortion exists. [21]On September 23, 2004, the CA rendered judgment in favor of the Union and reversed that of the VA. The fallo of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision dated June 6, 2001 of public respondent Voluntary Arbitrator is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Private respondent Pag-Asa Steel Works, Inc. is ordered to pay the members of the petitioner union the P26.50 daily wage by applying the wage increase prescribed under Wage Order No. NCR-08. Costs against private respondent.The CA stressed that the CBA constitutes the law between the employer and the Union. It held that the CBA is plain and clear, and leaves no doubt as to the intention of the parties, that is, to grant a wage increase that may be ordered by the Wage Board in addition to the CBA-mandated salary increases regardless of whether the employees are already receiving wages way above the minimum wage. The appellate court further held that the employer has no valid reason not to implement the wage increase mandated by Wage Order No. NCR-08 because prior thereto, it had been paying the wage increase provided for in the CBA even though the employees concerned were already receiving wages way above the applicable minimum wage.[23] Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which the CA denied for lack of merit on January 11, 2005.[24]SO ORDERED.[22]
I. WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A GRAVE REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT FINDING THAT THE INCREASES PROVIDED FOR UNDER WAGE ORDER NO. 8 CANNOT BE DEMANDED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER THE 1999 CBA, in that:Petitioner points out that the only issue agreed upon during the voluntary arbitration proceedings was whether or not the company was obliged to grant the wage increase under Wage Order No. NCR-08 as a matter of practice. It posits that the respondent did not anchor its claim for such wage increase on the CBA but on an alleged company practice of granting the increase pursuant to a wage order. According to petitioner, respondent Union changed its theory on appeal when it claimed before the CA that the CBA is ambiguous. [26] Petitioner contends that respondent Union was precluded from raising this issue as it was not raised during the voluntary arbitration. It insists that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. [27]a) Issue not averred in the complaint nor raised during the trial cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; andII. WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A GRAVE REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT FINDING THAT THE INCREASES PROVIDED FOR UNDER WAGE ORDER NO. 8 CANNOT BE DEMANDED BY THE RESPONDENT UNION AS A MATTER OF PRACTICE. [25]
b) The Rules of Statutory Construction, in relation to Article 1370 and 1374 of the New Civil Code, as well as Section 11 of the Rules of Court, requires that contract must be read in its entirety and the various stipulations in a contract must be read together to give effect to all.
x x x whether or not the wage increase of P26.50 under Wage Order No. NCR-08 must be paid to the union members as a matter of practice and whether or not parol evidence can be resorted to in proving or explaining or elucidating the existence of a collateral agreement/company practice for the payment of the wage increase under the wage order despite that the employees were already receiving wages way above the minimum wage of P250.00/day as prescribed by Wage Order No. NCR-08 and irrespective of whether wage distortion exists. [36]Petitioner, in its Comment on the petition, delved into these issues and elaborated on its contentions. By so doing, it thereby agreed for the CA to take cognizance of such issues as defined by respondent (petitioner therein). Moreover, a perusal of the records shows that the issue of whether or not the CBA is ambiguous and does not reflect the true agreement of the parties was, in fact, raised before the voluntary arbitration proceedings. Despite the submission agreement confining the issue to whether petitioner was obliged to grant an increase pursuant to Wage Order No. NCR-08 as a matter of practice, respondent Union nevertheless raised the same issues in its pleadings. In its Position Paper, it asserted that the CBA consistently contained a collateral agreement to pay the equivalent of the wage orders across-the-board; in its Reply, it claimed that such provision clearly provided that petitioner would pay the additional increases apart from the CBA and that the wage order serves only as a measure of said increase. These assertions indicate that respondent Union also relied on the CBA to support its claim for the wage increase.
On the other hand, Wage Order No. NCR-08 specifically provides that only those in the private sector in the NCR receiving the prescribed daily minimum wage rate of P223.00 per day would receive an increase of P26.50 a day, thereby setting the new minimum wage rate in said region to P250.00 per day. There is no dispute that, when the order was issued, the lowest paid employee of petitioner was receiving a wage higher than P250.00 a day. As such, its employees had no right to demand for an increase under said order. As correctly ruled by the VA:SALARIES AND WAGE
Section 1. WAGE ADJUSTMENT — The COMPANY agrees to grant to all workers who are already regular and covered by this AGREEMENT at the effectivity of this AGREEMENT a general wage increase as follows:July 1, 1999 ....... P15.00 per day per employee
July 1, 2000 ....... P25.00 per day per employee
July 1, 2001 ....... P 30.00 per day per employee
The aforesaid wage increase shall be implemented across the board. Any Wage Order to be implemented by the Regional Tripartite Wage and Productivity Board shall be in addition to the wage increase adverted to above. However, if no wage increase is given by the Wage Board within six (6) months from the signing of this AGREEMENT, the Management is willing to give the following increases, to wit:July 1, 1999 ....... P 20.00 per day per employee
July 1, 2000 ....... P 25.00 per day per employee
July 1, 2001 ....... P 30.00 per day per employee
The difference of the first year adjustment to retroact to July 1, 1999.
The across-the-board wage increase for the 4th and 5th year of this AGREEMENT shall be subject for a reopening or renegotiation as provided for by Republic Act No. 6715. [37]
We now come to the core of this case. Is [petitioner] under an obligation to grant wage increase to its workers under W.O. No. NCR-08 as a matter of practice? It is submitted that employers (unless exempt) in Metro Manila (including the [petitioner]) are mandated to implement the said wage order but limited to those entitled thereto. There is no legal basis to implement the same across-the-board. A perusal of the record shows that the lowest paid employee before the implementation of Wage Order #8 is P250.00/day and none was receiving below P223.50 minimum. This could only mean that the union can no longer demand for any wage distortion adjustment. Neither could they insist for an adjustment of P26.50 increase under Wage Order #8. The provision of wage order #8 and its implementing rules are very clear as to who are entitled to the P26.50/day increase, i.e., "private sector workers and employees in the National Capital Region receiving the prescribed daily minimum wage rate of P223.50 shall receive an increase of Twenty-Six Pesos and Fifty Centavos (P26.50) per day," and since the lowest paid is P250.00/day the company is not obliged to adjust the wages of the workers.The error of the CA lies in its considering only the CBA in interpreting the wage adjustment provision, without taking into account Wage Order No. NCR-08, and the fact that the members of respondent Union were already receiving salaries higher than P250.00 a day when it was issued. The CBA cannot be considered independently of the wage order which respondent Union relied on for its claim.
With the above narration of facts and with the union not having effectively controverted the same, we find no merit to the complainant's assertion of such a company practice in the grant of wage order increase applied across-the-board. The fact that it was shown the increases granted under the Wage Orders were obtained thru request and negotiations because of the existence of wage distortion and not as company practice as what the union would want.
Neither do we find merit in the argument that under the CBA, such increase should be implemented across-the-board. The provision in the CBA that "Any Wage Order to be implemented by the Regional Tripartite Wage and Productivity Board shall be in addition to the wage increase adverted above" cannot be interpreted in support of an across-the-board increase. If such were the intentions of this provision, then the company could have simply accepted the original demand of the union for such across-the-board implementation, as set forth in their original proposal (Annex "2" union[']s counsel proposal). The fact that the company rejected this proposal can only mean that it was never its intention to agree, to such across-the-board implementation. Thus, the union will have to be contented with the increase of P30.00 under the CBA which is due on July 31, 2001 barely a month from now.[38]
x x x The wage orders did not grant across-the-board increases to all employees in the National Capital Region but limited such increases only to those already receiving wage rates not more than P125.00 per day under Wage Order Nos. NCR-01 and NCR-01-A and P142.00 per day under Wage Order No. NCR-02. Since the wage orders specified who among the employees are entitled to the statutory wage increases, then the increases applied only to those mentioned therein. The provisions of the CBA should be read in harmony with the wage orders, whose benefits should be given only to those employees covered thereby. (Emphasis added)[41]In this case, as gleaned from the pleadings of the parties, respondent Union relied on a collateral agreement between it and petitioner, an agreement extrinsic of the CBA based on an alleged established practice of the latter as employer. The VA rejected this claim:
Complainant Pag-Asa Steel Workers Union additionally advances the arguments that "there exist a collateral agreement to pay the equivalent of wage orders across the board or at least to negotiate how much will be paid" and that "parol evidence is now applicable to show or explain what the unclean provisions of the CBA means regarding wage adjustment." The respondent cites Article XXVII of the CBA in effect, as follows:We agree with petitioner's contention that the rule excluding parol evidence to vary or contradict a written agreement, does not extend so far as to preclude the admission of extrinsic evidence, to show prior or contemporaneous collateral parol agreements between the parties. Such evidence may be received regardless of whether or not the written agreement contains reference to such collateral agreement. [43] As the Court ruled in United Kimberly-Clark Employees Union, et al. v. Kimberly-Clark Philippines, Inc. [44]"The parties acknowledged that during the negotiation which resulted in this AGREEMENT, each had the unlimited right & opportunity to make demands, claims and proposals of every kind and nature with respect to any subject or matter not removed by law from the Collective Bargaining and the understanding and agreements arrived at by the parties after the exercise of that right & opportunity are set forth in this AGREEMENT. Therefore, the COMPANY and the UNION, for the life of this AGREEMENT, agrees that neither party shall not be obligated to bargain collectively with respect to any subject matter not specifically referred to or covered in this AGREEMENT, and furthermore, that each party voluntarily & unqualifiedly waives such right even though such subject may not have been within the knowledge or contemplation of either or both of the parties at the time they signed this AGREEMENT."From the said CBA provision and upon an appreciation of the entire CBA, we find it to have more than amply covered all aspects of the collective bargaining. To allow alleged collateral agreements or parol/oral agreements would be violative of the CBA provision afore-quoted. [42]
A CBA is more than a contract; it is a generalized code to govern a myriad of cases which the draftsmen cannot wholly anticipate. It covers the whole employment relationship and prescribes the rights and duties of the parties. It is a system of industrial self-government with the grievance machinery at the very heart of the system. The parties solve their problems by molding a system of private law for all the problems which may arise and to provide for their solution in a way which will generally accord with the variant needs and desires of the parties.However, just like any other fact, habits, customs, usage or patterns of conduct must be proved. Thus was the ruling of the Court in Bank of Commerce v. Manalo, et al. [46]
If the terms of a CBA are clear and have no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulation shall prevail. However, if, in a CBA, the parties stipulate that the hirees must be presumed of employment qualification standards but fail to state such qualification standards in said CBA, the VA may resort to evidence extrinsic of the CBA to determine the full agreement intended by the parties. When a CBA may be expected to speak on a matter, but does not, its sentence imports ambiguity on that subject. The VA is not merely to rely on the cold and cryptic words on the face of the CBA but is mandated to discover the intention of the parties. Recognizing the inability of the parties to anticipate or address all future problems, gaps may be left to be filled in by reference to the practices of the industry, and the step which is equally a part of the CBA although not expressed in it. In order to ascertain the intention of the contracting parties, their contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be principally considered. The VA may also consider and rely upon negotiating and contractual history of the parties, evidence of past practices interpreting ambiguous provisions. The VA has to examine such practices to determine the scope of their agreement, as where the provision of the CBA has been loosely formulated. Moreover, the CBA must be construed liberally rather than narrowly and technically and the Court must place a practical and realistic construction upon it. [45]
Habit, custom, usage or pattern of conduct must be proved like any other facts. Courts must contend with the caveat that, before they admit evidence of usage, of habit or pattern of conduct, the offering party must establish the degree of specificity and frequency of uniform response that ensures more than a mere tendency to act in a given manner but rather, conduct that is semi-automatic in nature. The offering party must allege and prove specific, repetitive conduct that might constitute evidence of habit. The examples offered in evidence to prove habit, or pattern of evidence must be numerous enough to base on inference of systematic conduct. Mere similarity of contracts does not present the kind of sufficiently similar circumstances to outweigh the danger of prejudice and confusion.We have reviewed the records meticulously and find no evidence to prove that the grant of a wage-order-mandated increase to all the employees regardless of their salary rates on an agreement collateral to the CBA had ripened into company practice before the effectivity of Wage Order No. NCR-08. Respondent Union failed to adduce proof on the salaries of the employees prior to the issuance of each wage order to establish its allegation that, even if the employees were receiving salaries above the minimum wage and there was no wage distortion, they were still granted salary increase. Only the following lists of salaries of respondent Union's members were presented in evidence: (1) before Wage Order No. NCR-06 was issued; (2) after Wage Order No. NCR-06 was implemented; (3) after the grant of the first year increase under the CBA; (4) after Wage Order No. NCR-07 was implemented; and (5) after the second year increase in the CBA was implemented.
In determining whether the examples are numerous enough, and sufficiently regular, the key criteria are adequacy of sampling and uniformity of response. After all, habit means a course of behavior of a person regularly represented in like circumstances. It is only when examples offered to establish pattern of conduct or habit are numerous enough to lose an inference of systematic conduct that examples are admissible. The key criteria are adequacy of sampling and uniformity of response or ratio of reaction to situations.